How would you destroy a traversable wormhole?

[Winston Blake]

Let's say you have a wormhole facility in a particular star system, and your forces are evacuating through it. You want to destroy the wormhole so the bad guys can't follow. If this is a realistic wormhole, held open by a cube of exotic matter, can you just shoot the (one-dimensional) edges of the cube (projectile weapons) and collapse the wormhole? Or is it similar to trying to 'destroy' a black hole?

I know that wormholes collapse due to the CPC if their mouths are moved closer together than the time difference between them, but other than that, how would you destroy a wormhole?

[Lord Zentei]

Send a photon through it. [/cynic]

[CaptainChewbacca]

Let's say you have a wormhole facility in a particular star system, and your forces are evacuating through it. You want to destroy the wormhole so the bad guys can't follow. If this is a realistic wormhole, held open by a cube of exotic matter, can you just shoot the (one-dimensional) edges of the cube (projectile weapons) and collapse the wormhole? Or is it similar to trying to 'destroy' a black hole?

I know that wormholes collapse due to the CPC if their mouths are moved closer together than the time difference between them, but other than that, how would you destroy a wormhole?

An extradimensional whatnot of exotic matter wouldn't necessarily obey most (or any) of the laws of physics. As a general rule, gravity always wins, so if you can mess with local gravity enough suddenly or strongly you could maybe do something. Other than that, you've just got to be internally consistent with your own fictional science.

[SirNitram]

A traversible wormhole would be held open by a large amount of negative energy(IE, antigravity source).

Destroy whatever is holding this in place, and the traversible section will collapse. With catastrophic results.

[Winston Blake]

A traversible wormhole would be held open by a large amount of negative energy(IE, antigravity source).

Destroy whatever is holding this in place, and the traversible section will collapse. With catastrophic results.

Yeah but how do you hit a one-dimensional object? Wouldn't one half of your projectile go through one face of the cube and the other half go through the other?

Assuming you can hit it, would it take an impact like a tank penetrator or would the slightest nudge make it all tumble down? Further, roughly how catastrophic are we talking? Would it just blink away harmlessly or could it destroy a fleet of sieging ships within a 1km radius?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

A traversible wormhole would be held open by a large amount of negative energy(IE, antigravity source).

Destroy whatever is holding this in place, and the traversible section will collapse. With catastrophic results.

Yeah but how do you hit a one-dimensional object? Wouldn't one half of your projectile go through one face of the cube and the other half go through the other?

Assuming you can hit it, would it take an impact like a tank penetrator or would the slightest nudge make it all tumble down? Further, roughly how catastrophic are we talking? Would it just blink away harmlessly or could it destroy a fleet of sieging ships within a 1km radius?

Er.... Wait. Why is this object 1 dimensional in the first place?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Er.... Wait. Why is this object 1 dimensional in the first place?

Maybe it is extradimensional and only exists in our space in a single dimension. Of course, that would make it hard to fly through.

[Winston Blake]

Er.... Wait. Why is this object 1 dimensional in the first place?

Maybe it is extradimensional and only exists in our space in a single dimension. Of course, that would make it hard to fly through.

I'm talking about the cubic frame of negative mass one-dimensional strings holding the wormhole throat open. You enter it by entering one face of the cube.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Er.... Wait. Why is this object 1 dimensional in the first place?

Maybe it is extradimensional and only exists in our space in a single dimension. Of course, that would make it hard to fly through.

I'm talking about the cubic frame of negative mass one-dimensional strings holding the wormhole throat open. You enter it by entering one face of the cube.

Why not a wide radius proximity explosive? Of course calculate the approximate position of the boundary and set it off.

[Winston Blake]

Why not a wide radius proximity explosive? Of course calculate the approximate position of the boundary and set it off.

The thing that gets me is that the part of the blast that hits the wormhole would simply go through to the other mouth, and the part that doesn't, well, can't do any damage anyway.

[Solauren]

A Three Dimensional Anti-Matter spray might do it (unlikely)

Graviton beam perhaps?

[SirNitram]

A traversible wormhole would be held open by a large amount of negative energy(IE, antigravity source).

Destroy whatever is holding this in place, and the traversible section will collapse. With catastrophic results.

Yeah but how do you hit a one-dimensional object? Wouldn't one half of your projectile go through one face of the cube and the other half go through the other?

Assuming you can hit it, would it take an impact like a tank penetrator or would the slightest nudge make it all tumble down? Further, roughly how catastrophic are we talking? Would it just blink away harmlessly or could it destroy a fleet of sieging ships within a 1km radius?

At what point was it determined that negative energy/mass is one dimensional?

How catastrophic? Well, obviously the wormhole will shut back to being a black hole. This will likely destroy anything too close to it, possibly including whatever fired the shot.

[Patrick Degan]

Wormholes are unstable to begin with, and it would be taking considerable expenditure of energy simply to keep the thing from collapsing each time a ship would pass through it. Any sufficiently large energy disruption should be enough to tip the balance and initiate its collapse. And for any ship launching a weapon, a minimum distance of three Schwartzild radii would be sufficient to avoid the danger of being drawn in toward the singularity. It's the radiation burst danger which is the greater worry.

[Admiral Valdemar]

For a wormhole large enough to have macroscale object traversal, it'd take some funky amount of exotic energy and matter, so it's pretty hard to gauge how something would react with physical phenomena not actually observed yet. Sub-atomic particles are one thing, but anything a ship can pass through is a whole different ball game.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

A nuclear bomb will destroy most anything, I suggest starting there/

[wolveraptor]

Wait, if you invented something out of thin air that keeps wormholes open, why are you asking other people how it works? You're the one who made it up, you decide how it works.

[Surlethe]

Wormholes are unstable to begin with, and it would be taking considerable expenditure of energy simply to keep the thing from collapsing each time a ship would pass through it. Any sufficiently large energy disruption should be enough to tip the balance and initiate its collapse. And for any ship launching a weapon, a minimum distance of three Schwartzild radii would be sufficient to avoid the danger of being drawn in toward the singularity. It's the radiation burst danger which is the greater worry.

So, essentially, since you're spending energy to get through, the only thing you have to do to cause it to collapse is to cut off the energy supply, instead of actively doing something to the wormhole?

[Gil Hamilton]

So, essentially, since you're spending energy to get through, the only thing you have to do to cause it to collapse is to cut off the energy supply, instead of actively doing something to the wormhole?

I think the idea is that even if you close it and it curls up into the tiny ball wormholes curl up in, the guys on the other side you don't like might have the technology to pry it open again, hence you want to more permenantly explode it.

[CmdrWilkens]

Wormholes are unstable to begin with, and it would be taking considerable expenditure of energy simply to keep the thing from collapsing each time a ship would pass through it. Any sufficiently large energy disruption should be enough to tip the balance and initiate its collapse. And for any ship launching a weapon, a minimum distance of three Schwartzild radii would be sufficient to avoid the danger of being drawn in toward the singularity. It's the radiation burst danger which is the greater worry.

So, essentially, since you're spending energy to get through, the only thing you have to do to cause it to collapse is to cut off the energy supply, instead of actively doing something to the wormhole?

Yes and no because spending energy would imply converting energy to some useful form. The wormhole simply needs a extraordinarily ginourmous amount of negative energy to be present. Before we even go into how one would generate and then contain that amount of negative energy the key thing to do would be to disrupt the ernergy balance either by siphoning off some of the negative energy or by destroying whatever is holding it in palce.

[Winston Blake]

At what point was it determined that negative energy/mass is one dimensional?

I'm talking about Visser wormholes, which AFAIK use miniature negative-energy cosmic strings to hold the mouth open, which are one-dimensional.

How catastrophic? Well, obviously the wormhole will shut back to being a black hole. This will likely destroy anything too close to it, possibly including whatever fired the shot.

Ok, I was assuming it would just sort of disappear back into flat spacetime.

Wait, if you invented something out of thin air that keeps wormholes open, why are you asking other people how it works? You're the one who made it up, you decide how it works.

I didn't make them up, Dr. Visser did. Wormholes were invented before they appeared in science fiction.

Wormholes are unstable to begin with, and it would be taking considerable expenditure of energy simply to keep the thing from collapsing each time a ship would pass through it. Any sufficiently large energy disruption should be enough to tip the balance and initiate its collapse. And for any ship launching a weapon, a minimum distance of three Schwartzild radii would be sufficient to avoid the danger of being drawn in toward the singularity. It's the radiation burst danger which is the greater worry.

Oh ok. That's the impression I got from Stargate, but I thought 'real' wormholes were essentially stable once they'd been made, just like black holes are.

As an aside, shouldn't the production of a region of negative energy release a lot of energy, rather than consume it? Also, does the enormous energy expenditure end up as heat radiating from the mouths?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Oh ok. That's the impression I got from Stargate, but I thought 'real' wormholes were essentially stable once they'd been made, just like black holes are.

Black holes aren't stable, they evaporate over time. SG1 wormholes require enormous amounts of power, also.

[Admiral Valdemar]

By their nature, they likely never remain macroscale without that massive input of negative energy. Without some apparatus continually maintaining stability, the connection will simply shrink and become something on the quantum scale like a string.

Needless to say, destroying whatever feeds that beast would be more of a problem given its energy content. Being inside the wormhole as that happens and it collapses wouldn't be too good either.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Take a fucking huge asteroid, attach rockets to it and accelerate it towards the wormhole until it reaches near C fractional speeds and disrupts the local gravitational "layer/pulls". [/The Algebraist]

It would be all but impossible to react to in time or to destroy [in time with non ftl equipment]

[Patrick Degan]

Oh ok. That's the impression I got from Stargate, but I thought 'real' wormholes were essentially stable once they'd been made, just like black holes are.

Black holes aren't stable, they evaporate over time. SG1 wormholes require enormous amounts of power, also.

It would be more accurate to say that black holes are comparatively more stable than wormholes. Particularly ones massive enough to have lifetimes measured in the billions of years or even eternity.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Naturally, I doubt Sagittarius A* will be going anywhere soon, even if dormant. Only minuscule black holes need worry about dying in any reasonable time frame. Course, I wonder how that would be if you could connect two black holes of decent size as a wormhole.